It’s not strange that a president who ran on law and order issues would have agreements with the law enforcement community. But the way he talked about it was trademark Trump, and in the process, the president jokingly offered to “destroy” the career of at least one Tea Party state senator and staked out a position on the wrong side of an 80-percent issue in Texas.

For what it’s worth, neither do I, but he’s the president of the United States, and talking about destroying an elected lawmaker’s life for making law while a room full of law enforcement officers guffaw is chilling at the very least. It does nothing for public trust of either the president or law enforcement to be seen cavalierly laughing it up about abuses of power.

The exchange itself earned all the headlines, but let’s talk about the target(s) of the attack and the issue underlying it, which are more revealing of Trump’s unorthodox approach to governing. It’s a perfect illustration of how a Republican president with no particular ideological or party loyalties could go after even grassroots stars and popular issues on a whim.

Another possibility, and the senator who got most of the attention despite Eavenson using a male pronoun in his conversation with Trump, is Sen. Konni Burton. Another Tea Party hero, Burton turned Wendy Davis’ seat when the abortion activist ran her ill-fated campaign for governor of Texas. Also another political outsider, Burton owned a small business and was a full-time mom before jumping in the political ring. She was sworn in wearing custom cowboy boots embroidered with “Stand for Life,” and among other things, sponsored a bill calling for a constitutional convention to add fiscal restraint amendments.

Burton, who introduced a bill reforming civil asset forfeiture in the Texas legislature, responded to the oblique attack Wednesday: “I have never met with Sheriff Eavenson, nor even heard of him before yesterday. However, I take exception to his comments on asset forfeiture reform. While I certainly want law enforcement to have the tools necessary to combat large criminal enterprises, we must be vigilant to safeguard the rights of everyday citizens from potential abuse. Do not be mistaken or misled: this is not strictly a law enforcement issue; this is a property rights issue.”

When Cops Become Robbers

Now, let’s talk about the issue. Civil asset forfeiture is a system by which law enforcement can seize property on suspicion of the property having been involved in a crime. Whereas a person must be charged and convicted by a jury of peers, in civil asset forfeiture, his property has no such due process. In fact, citizens must prove their property innocent through a byzantine and bureaucratic process to reclaim it.

Law enforcement argues it must have this power to solve crimes. A study by the state of Texas said the state’s “proximity to the Mexican border” makes it a “target-rich” environment for drug-related seizures. Eavenson suggested it’s necessary to head off cartels. Critics argue it’s a violation of property rights and incentivizes abuse because forfeiture becomes a source of income for police forces. The same study found three counties in which asset forfeiture made up more than 70 percent of the police force’s budget, and more than half of counties use such funds to supplement salaries in the district attorneys’ offices.

The practice can be particularly burdensome to low-income citizens, as the government is not required to provide a lawyer but can require multiple court dates and onerous procedures to keep one’s property. In Philadelphia, police used the process to seize more than 1,000 homes over a decade, according to an Institute for Justice report. The confluence of constituency and property rights makes it an issue ripe for bipartisanism.

Popularity helps, too. When the Texas Public Policy Foundation polled the issue in January, it found 88 percent of Texans supported reforming the process— higher than support for other criminal justice reform polled. For these reasons, 2016 saw a wave of civil asset forfeiture reform laws passed in Ohio, California, Florida, and New Hampshire.

Now We All Know About It

Eavenson has said in the aftermath of this exchange that he hopes sunlight on the issue of civil asset forfeiture will work in the favor of proponents, but Derek Cohen, who works on criminal justice issues at the free-market Texas Public Policy Foundation, is skeptical.

Granted, there’s not a lot of civil asset forfeiture polling, but a 2015 YouGov survey suggests most don’t know what civil asset forfeiture is (72 percent), but a large majority think a charge or conviction should be required before property can be taken (71 percent).

“The current system is unworkable and establishes bad incentives, and it’s not conservative in the way it dispenses with property rights,” Cohen said. “It basically exists in the dark. That is a luxury that I think after yesterday no longer exists.”

“I will not be discouraged or deterred,” Burton said in her statement Wednesday — so I guess we’ll find out.